I respectfully disagree with the recent commentary in New Times by Pat Veesart ("A modest proposal," March 29). The purpose of the U.S. Constitution is to limit the power of government and to protect the individual rights of all Americans. The purpose of the Second Amendment is not to deter crime but to deter an oppressive government. The Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution states: "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." That right was given to the people by the Founding Fathers to protect the people from government oppression. The Founding Fathers were well aware of the dangers of an all-powerful government. The individual right to keep and bear arms was further confirmed in the Supreme Court ruling in the District of Columbia v. Heller.
Crimes are not committed by guns, crimes are committed by criminals. Criminals by definition will always have guns because they defy the law. Only law-abiding citizens obey the law, thus gun-control laws only affect those who obey the law. Just governments protect the right to bear arms, oppressive governments prohibit the right to bear arms. The penalty for the crime of murder is death or life in prison. If the death penalty or life in prison is insufficient to deter one from committing the crime of murder, how could any other law do more? Please give that some thought.